Crisis? What crisis

WHY does everything surrounding Manchester City have to be a soap opera played out for the delight of the uncommitted masses who not only don't really care but also find it highly amusing, asks Chris Bailey.

WHY does everything surrounding Manchester City have to be a soap opera played out for the delight of the uncommitted masses who not only don't really care but also find it highly amusing?

This morning after two victories, one draw, and three single-goal defeats, the Blues are eleventh in the Premiership and comfortably placed in the middle of the table where their playing profile suggests they should be.

When they finished ninth in their first season in the top flight under Kevin Keegan, City had only eight points from as many games so too much navel-gazing at this stage of the season seems a little premature though the manager is clearly not yet out of the woods.

If the Blues lose to Arsenal on Saturday, an entirely feasible result, will his head be on the chopping block again? A football club cannot thrive in such ludicrous circumstances.

If the board wanted change then they should have made it in the summer after an appalling season that saw their side only just escape the drop. To change horses after six games makes it appear they are governing `on the hoof'.

Once the decision to keep Keegan was made, albeit with strict instructions that dramatic improvement was needed, they were duty bound to give him the time to implement changes. Stuart Pearce for instance has been appointed joint head coach, a series of bonding days have been organised and have been successful and new ways of preparation have been introduced.

If the players are still not happy with the groundwork then Keegan should listen to them and not be too proud to ask for more help on the training ground.

In any event, six matches are hardly enough to judge his changes - although some of the signs have not been encouraging.

To be fair to the men running the club they have never said Keegan was facing the sack, but the fact that they haven't said anything at all publicly meant that certain sections of the tabloid press have had a field day at the club's expense.

Whispers from `sources' are never harbingers of happiness.

Failure

After his failure with England, Keegan has long been a target for certain newspapers and City are suffering as a result.

Would goalkeeper David James for instance have been subject to quite such over-the-top vilification had he not played for Keegan at City? One doubts it very much.

Seen in that light, there should on balance be small relief that Keegan has, for now, dodged the axe and survived the poison pens if only because of the innate decency and honesty he showed last week when blitzed with a barrage of hyped accusations many of which - including the Danny Mills clash and the Robbie Fowler fine - were simply not true.

The England full-back did have a discussion with Keegan about training methods and defensive preparation, but it took place in view of watching spectators, in the presence of the fitness coach and not only were fists not raised but neither were voices.

Quite frankly City fans should be happy that their players are getting so involved, it shows they care and that kind of collective responsibility rather than a manager's blinkered dictatorship should be applauded.

Like any boss in any organisation City's chief, who has openly admitted he is under pressure, is liked by some players not liked by others, but they are all professionals and had they not responded by showing they do care at Palace on Saturday then Keegan would in all likelihood have gone by now.

Not that he can rest on his laurels, for the manager still has plenty of questions to answer and the only way he can do that is by keeping the Blues in the Premiership's middle class and lower the expectation levels that he helped boost to a high altitude in the first place.

The first `Keegan out' chant has still not been heard at Eastlands; when it is he will not need telling that his time is up by any newspaper headline or chairman.